The Force of Talk in the Film A Thin Blue Line - Movie Review Example

The Force of Talk in the Film “A Thin Blue Line” A dis is an extensive debate about the perceptions that different people have towards certain truth. Documentaries are produced to reveal different dimensions of reality and they provide audiences with an in-depth explanation of non-fiction stories backed up with numerous evidences which can be at times contradictory. The art of discourse is mostly used in documentaries to explain real life happenings to audiences using filmed evidences that raise arguments on whether to justify the happenings or not (Plantinga, 1997, p.89). The thin blue line, a documentary film by Errol Morris profiles the case of Randall Dale Adams, who was wrongly convicted for the murder of a Dallas policeman in 1977. Charges were dropped in 1989 after the release of the Errol Morris’s film that revealed evidences that Randall Adams had been framed for murder. The thin blue line raises arguments as to whether the American Justice System was critical enough to prove Randall’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the fouled evidences provided the witnesses and the prosecutors (Errol, 2005). However, the power of discourse is eminent, for instance the folk songs by coal miners imply identification between the viewer and the miners as portrayed by Plantinga (1997, p.166). This film opens during a period when Adam was headed home and got stranded. An adolescent called David Harris offered him a ride on an auto that was stolen. The same auto was included in unlawful acts a police (Robert Wood) on watch was executed with a slug. Without knowing and being guiltless, Adam was detained a lifelong incarceration as he was denounced of homicide. He was dealt with unjustifiably by the law court. The homicide case for Adam was opened and toward the end he was discharged from a correctional facility. The documentary film is a compilation of the various interviews Errol Morris conducted with participants from both sides of a murder case which was aimed at proving Randall Adam’s innocence. The interview with Randall presents discourse which is marvelous in terms of personality manipulation (Plantinga, 1997, p.145). The film makes the audience realize that it is difficult to discern a grain of truth without deep scrutiny of evidences presented. Harris stated: "Ive always thought if you could say why theres a reason Randall Adams is in jail, it might be because the fact that he didnt have no place for somebody to stay that helped him that night...landed him wheres hes at...That might be the reason. That might be the only, total reason why hes where hes at today (Errol, 2005)." The documentary film brings forth an argument between what was said in the testimonies given by the witnesses and what the physical evidences reveal. The film points out that the prosecutor’s investigations were not thorough enough to have proved that Randall was indeed at the crime screen before convicting him for murder considering that the witness’s testimonies were very inconsistent. Evidence that Errol Morris unearthed from interviewing Randall reveals that Harris had dropped him at his home two hours before the policeman was shot. The film exposes the Texas Judicial system and the local authorities in Texas for being a bit sly for believing Harris’s allegations to have witnessed the shooting without strong supportive evidence that Randall was indeed at the car at the time of the shooting. Harris, quoted the last words of a passenger on one of the jets hijacked on Sept. 11, 2001, in his final statement. "Sir, in honor of a true American hero, lets roll," he said before receiving a lethal injection. “A Thin Blue Line” uncovers Harris’s personality as being psychopathic. He showed no remorse at his interview with Errol Morris while talking about the shooting. After testifying against Randall, he went on bragging to his friends the following day that he had shot the policeman with a gun given to him by his father. There is no scene in the film however showing Harris shooting the policeman, but it hints to how questionable Texas authorities were, believing Harris’s account. In the film, a Dallas detective was questioned if they did not see any oddities in that the weapon of murder was Harris’s pistol and the car they were in, Harris claimed to be his. He responded saying that they were not after ruining a young man’s life. This clearly portrays how careless and incompetent Texas police force must have been. The film questions the Texas police force for arresting Randall on allegations made by a sixteen  year old having a criminal record and with no clear evidence that Randall indeed pulled the trigger that night. The Texas police believed David Harris’s testimony on a lazy thought that a small boy could not tell a lie to the authorities. This brings out the desperation the Texas police had in finding a person to avenge for the loss of their comrade, which overshadowed their supposed quest for justice (Plantinga, 1997, p.155). Harris lawyers, in their arguments, said the combination of sodium thiopental, pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride, used in succession, would "likely cause Mr. Harris consciously to suffer excruciating pain and an agonizing death, while appearing to die peacefully." "At this point, we dont know how were going to proceed," Texas prison spokeswoman Michelle Lyons said. "Were going to continue to consult with the attorney generals office ... and see what would be the appropriate action." The film presents to its audience a visual map of how the crime could have been possibly committed and leaves the choice to the audience on which sequence of events is most authentic.  Errol Morris uses The Thin Blue Line as a medium to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Randall did not commit the murder. He used classic dramatization with aid of the available evidence which refurbished the events that led to the wrongful conviction of Randall Adams. The purpose of the film was to explore the different perceptions people have of the truth and justice (Plantinga, 1997, p.147). The majority of the performing artists have gone miles to make documentaries for their films. A Thin Blue Line is a reported film that was regulated by Errol Morris in 1976. The film protects and unlawful detainment. The narrative uses scenes utilizing performing artists as this is not a common way when making documentaries. A ton of things reflected in this film has monstrous compliments which can be made. Randal Adams is indicted homicide of a cop by a quick attorney. Any slight clue of uncertainty was not dropped whatsoever. Adams is presented as an issue of his words who talks his psyche. Morris additionally presents an adolescent witness known as David Harris. The witness (David) uncovers him to be remorseful for his past offenses and makes him to be a horrible witness. The film is fascinating all through (Errol, 2005). The film can be said to be extremely contending as Adam is discovered in all charges to be guiltless. The film happened practically unintentionally: Morris became wrecked analyzing an interchange undertaking and began to research, in feature structure, the occurrence of Adams and Harris, two pariahs whose routes crossed in Dallas one night in November of 1976. What the story inventor found from his specific systematic gathering of signs, gossipy goodies, and extemporaneous confirmation was an amazing contention against the juvenile drifter David Harris, who unmistakably fingered Adams for his specific wrongdoing. Morris was aided by an influencing and clear insurance showed by Adams himself, whose calm recitation of truths is routinely more enchanting than the unfavorable Philip Glass music score. Boss Errol Morris repeats the case using old film footage, odd practical deviations, enthusiastic changes, and gatherings with practically everyone included, including the likely veritable killer, who certainly surrenders his fault in the last scene. The film is more slyly composed than most documentaries, yet then is so bona fide in its journey for reality that it exhibited instrumental in helping an unsuccessful work of value (after it opened, the collection of proof against Harris was restored, and at last disturbed). The boss himself stays (of course) everything aside from imperceptible all through the film, besides his trademark dull nerve (the announcement blue in the title is shaded red and so forth). A horrifying unsuccessful work of value would show up an uncalled for wellspring of giggles, yet the streak of faint astuteness underlines the on occasion senseless workings of a flawed legitimate structure. Yet the film demonstrates that it is so oversimplified to accept that arranging material victimizes a film of its objectivity and genuineness. To be sure, what is most striking about the film is its careful truthfulness. Every re-sanctioning is determined by the record we have recently listened; every adaptation of occasions is envisioned, as though being gone for. That being said, the view that Morris clearly supports and is looking to persuade us is genuine is not misleadingly expanded. We never see, for instance, a re-institution that unequivocally reveals to us David Harris, alone at the scene, shooting Robert Wood. This does not mean, be that as it may, that all adaptations of the occasions are held up as just as doubtful. Its chic among certain scholarly rings to contend that there is no such thing as target truth; that any record of occasions is characteristically a fiction (Plantinga, 1997, p.92), molded by our own particular biases, convictions, values etc. In reordering each point of view of occasions without qualification, Morris from the get go is by all accounts attributing to this perspective. Every adaptation is an alternate story, obviously just as legitimate (Plantinga, 1997, p.110). Yet Morris never dismisses the way that albeit distinctive individuals may remake genuine occasions in diverse ways, some individual pulled the trigger that night. The film develops to one last question, recorded on sound tape, in which Harris creeps closer and closer to an admission. Its an unendurably strained minute, in which Morris resorts to the least complex of narrative confirmation to at long last settle on a truth. Obviously, the testing and weighing of diverse adaptations of reality, to touch base at one that is genuine, is what Adams trial should do in 1977. Rather it was left to Morris to do so with his film. The Thin Blue Line was discharged in 1988, and Randall Adams was discharged from penitentiary in 1989 in the wake of serving twelve years for a homicide he didnt confer. For four of those years he was confronting a capital punishment, which at one point came surprisingly close to being completed. (The film recommends capital punishment was just driven keeping in mind the end goal to keep away from the requirement for a retrial after the first choice was caused to be reinvestigated). I assume there must be individuals who have seen The Thin Blue Line who keep on believing in capital punishment; however it is hard to perceive how. Conclusively, a long way from being bargained by its strategies, Morris film is narrative filmmaking taking care of business: a pulverizing contention around an essential issue; an archive that helped in liberating an imprisoned man; a splendid character study; and an astonishing practice in system. Randall Adams as featured in the film runs out of gas and a teenager, David Ray Harris offers him a ride in a stolen car. This narrative, the dainty blue line, is impeccable as I would like to think, Morris focal accomplishment is pacing the viewer non-somewhat into the judges seat and, calm tones, essentially requests that you be the judge, to settle on a choice: who is the killer here? On that same night, a Dallas policeman was shot dead on traffic patrol. Ray Harris, alongside other witnesses testified in a Texas court that they witnessed Randall Adams shoot the policeman and in 1979, following the local Texas court proceedings Randall was convicted for murder and was given a death penalty. The proof is set before you without flourish; the homicide, the accused, the suspected, the witnesses, the suspicions, the claims, the guess, the fault. The film effectively contended the wrongful conviction for homicide of a man by a degenerate equity framework. Finally, the discourse in “The Thin Blue Line” has been presented in different forms. It takes the form of a narrative which changes from scene to scene for instance to interrogations. Therefore, Morris presented the power of discourse so perfectly that the documentary is interesting and the plot is well laid out. Work cited Carl R. Plantinga. (1997). Rhethoric and Representation in Nonfiction Film: Holins College; Cambridge University Press. Morris, Errol, Lindsay Law, Mark Lipson, Stefan Czapsky, Robert Chappell, Paul Barnes, Philip Glass, Ted Bafaloukos, Randall D. Adams, and David Harris. The Thin Blue Line. Santa Monica, CA: Metro Goldwyn Mayer Home Entertainment, 2005. . Read More